Lizotte v. Eastern Oregon Hospital

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Lizotte v. Eastern Oregon Hospital

741 P.2d 929, 87 Or. App. 207

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 2, 1987

Docket84-10933; CA A37861

StatusPublished

This text of 741 P.2d 929 (Lizotte v. Eastern Oregon Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lizotte v. Eastern Oregon Hospital, 741 P.2d 929, 87 Or. App. 207 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Claimant petitioned for review of a Worker’s Compensation Board award of 35 percent permanent partial disability due to a compensable injury. We affirmed without opinion. 83 Or App 524, 732 P2d 91 (1987). The Supreme Court remanded, 303 Or 456, 737 P2d 616 (1987), because it could not determine whether we had evaluated the evidence under the standard in Barrett v. D & H Drywall, 300 Or 325, 709 P2d 1083 (1985), 300 Or 553, 715 P2d 90 (1986).

At the hearing before the referee, the parties had relied on our opinion in Barrett v. D & H Drywall, 73 Or App 184, 698 P2d 498 (1985), which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. However, we issued oúr decision in this case after the Supreme Court’s decision in Barrett, and our consideration of the facts was done in the light of that opinion. On remand, we find no reason to disturb our earlier determination on de novo review that the referee correctly awarded claimant compensation for loss of earning capacity due to his compen-sable injury and not for his pre-existing degenerative condition. Barrett v. D & H Drywall, supra, 300 Or at 555.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Claimant petitioned for review of a Worker’s Compensation Board award of 35 percent permanent partial disability due to a compensable injury. We affirmed without opinion. 83 Or App 524, 732 P2d 91 (1987). The Supreme Court remanded, 303 Or 456, 737 P2d 616 (1987), because it could not determine whether we had evaluated the evidence under the standard in Barrett v. D & H Drywall, 300 Or 325, 709 P2d 1083 (1985), 300 Or 553, 715 P2d 90 (1986).

At the hearing before the referee, the parties had relied on our opinion in Barrett v. D & H Drywall, 73 Or App 184, 698 P2d 498 (1985), which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. However, we issued oúr decision in this case after the Supreme Court’s decision in Barrett, and our consideration of the facts was done in the light of that opinion. On remand, we find no reason to disturb our earlier determination on de novo review that the referee correctly awarded claimant compensation for loss of earning capacity due to his compen-sable injury and not for his pre-existing degenerative condition. Barrett v. D & H Drywall, supra, 300 Or at 555.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 P.2d 929, 87 Or. App. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lizotte-v-eastern-oregon-hospital-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack